Damn straight! The country should just be run by the coasts and the districts in the middle should stfu.

Of course not, the country should be run by its people, each person receiving one vote. Should we also give rich people extra votes just so the poor and middle class don't run the country?

according to many of the founding fathers, the answer would be an emphatic, "Yes."

And that is exactly the problem with system they created, and the reason I think it should be changed. We're not the same country we were back then.

I don't know if direct democracy is good for the country, but it's certainly fair.

And if we are really going to weight votes "for the good of the country," we should probably do it by education and intelligence, not by geography.[/quote]They tried that with the EC, and that seems to be failing us.

I don't know if direct democracy is good for the country, but it's certainly fair.

And if we are really going to weight votes "for the good of the country," we should probably do it by education and intelligence, not by geography.

Ah yes - diplomas and intelligence quotients instead of voter id's. Certainly that will not disenfranchise large swaths of the population.

Vox just published the transcript of an interview with a Trump voter. Her family had gone without health insurance for two years before ACA. After ACA, they got insurance, and her husband was diagnosed with non-alcoholic cirrhosis (because he didn't get regular LFTs as recommended for the meds he was on). Now he needs a transplant.

She voted for Trump, and is surprised that they're making a serious run at repealing ACA, and don't appear to have a plan.

It was equal parts sad and infuriating. I don't think she should lose her voting rights, but good god people.

Well, you are not going to get enough states to agree to break up the EC, so the next best option is to break up california.

HRC won it by a margin almost twice her national lead, in absolute numbers. Nationally;1.3, Cali; 3.4.

every additional state would automatically get two additional senators and EC votes. It would be a new blue wall.

Speaking of new states ... in reading through the 2016 Republican platform, I noticed support for Puerto Rican statehood, which I thought was odd. The only explanation I could come up (and supported by no actual knowledge or facts) was that maybe there's a large population of Catholics who would vote Republican based on abortion?

Vox just published the transcript of an interview with a Trump voter. Her family had gone without health insurance for two years before ACA. After ACA, they got insurance, and her husband was diagnosed with non-alcoholic cirrhosis (because he didn't get regular LFTs as recommended for the meds he was on). Now he needs a transplant.

She voted for Trump, and is surprised that they're making a serious run at repealing ACA, and don't appear to have a plan.

It was equal parts sad and infuriating. I don't think she should lose her voting rights, but good god people.

Vox just published the transcript of an interview with a Trump voter. Her family had gone without health insurance for two years before ACA. After ACA, they got insurance, and her husband was diagnosed with non-alcoholic cirrhosis (because he didn't get regular LFTs as recommended for the meds he was on). Now he needs a transplant.

She voted for Trump, and is surprised that they're making a serious run at repealing ACA, and don't appear to have a plan.

It was equal parts sad and infuriating. I don't think she should lose her voting rights, but good god people.

Well, you are not going to get enough states to agree to break up the EC, so the next best option is to break up california.

HRC won it by a margin almost twice her national lead, in absolute numbers. Nationally;1.3, Cali; 3.4.

every additional state would automatically get two additional senators and EC votes. It would be a new blue wall.

thrice

Would letting the House grow proportionally a la something like the Wyoming Rule also work, since it would also increase the number of electors and even out the ratio so Californians are back to having similar power per vote as the smaller states?

Of course the problem with electoral reform is that you first have to win (usually some kind of super-majority) in the current way. If you win in the current way.... why do you want to change it again? And so it goes...

Wait wait wait, there is a massive difference between thinking one (and others in one's situation) should pay more taxes and 'voluntarily' doing so.

I strongly believe I could easily afford higher taxes and would gladly do so if this would lead to a fairer and better society overall. But voluntarily paying more tax (as if that were even possible) wouldn't change a thing and not lead to a more just tax code.

You believe A but voluntarily choose to act contrary to A for <justifications>.

I get that it's different than another person choosing to act differently than his beliefs. Or something.

There are plenty of people who are rather vocal about feeling they should pay more in taxes than they do -- but who don't voluntarily do so.

Plenty of people have incompatible beliefs on both the R and D side of the aisle.

First, people rarely feel that they personally should pay more in taxes, but fail to do so. They feel that the tax framework should be different, despite the fact that they would end up having to pay more in taxes. This is a well studied issue called collective action.

Second, blaming Obamacare for health problems while not taking advantage of Obamacare is equivalent to me complaining my taxes are too high while declining tax deductions passed by republicans and blaming the republicans to boot. Nobody does that and your parallel is not apt.

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W

Maybe I am interpreting this wrong but people give to charity all the time without some authority making them do it.

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W

Maybe I am interpreting this wrong but people give to charity all the time without some authority making them do it.

Many religions make donations part of being a good person/going into heaven so I would consider that come authority making them.

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W

Maybe I am interpreting this wrong but people give to charity all the time without some authority making them do it.

Many religions make donations part of being a good person/going into heaven so I would consider that come authority making them.

Non-religious people (or people who are religious but are not required to give charity) give to charity all the time without some authority making them do it. /Correction

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W

Maybe I am interpreting this wrong but people give to charity all the time without some authority making them do it.

I think you did interpret it wrong. It's not that Americans donít give to charity, because we do. It's that no charity is large enough or has enough money to tackle nationwide problems. Also, the freeloader problem is still a problem. Also, plenty of people are threatened with eternal damnation and torture their entire childhoods and still manage to give zero fucks, so I don't think that's really an effective way to get people to part with their money.

Also, it's kind of a silly argument. Sure, people donate to charities all the time. Charities, however, aren't going to run school districts, inspect buildings for code (safety) violations, pave roads, run libraries, clean and maintain parks, enforce laws, care for orphans, create and inforce regulation protecting our health, etc. Taxes force everyone to pay their fair share of resources they either use directly themselves or that others currently use and they might someday use themselves.

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W

Maybe I am interpreting this wrong but people give to charity all the time without some authority making them do it.

I think you did interpret it wrong. It's not that Americans donít give to charity, because we do. It's that no charity is large enough or has enough money to tackle nationwide problems. Also, the freeloader problem is still a problem. Also, plenty of people are threatened with eternal damnation and torture their entire childhoods and still manage to give zero fucks, so I don't think that's really an effective way to get people to part with their money.

Also, it's kind of a silly argument. Sure, people donate to charities all the time. Charities, however, aren't going to run school districts, inspect buildings for code (safety) violations, pave roads, run libraries, clean and maintain parks, enforce laws, care for orphans, create and inforce regulation protecting our health, etc. Taxes force everyone to pay their fair share of resources they either use directly themselves or that others currently use and they might someday use themselves.

I understand waht you are saying. Charities have run schools, libraries, hospitals and taken care of orphans in the past. Actually, other than "enforce laws" the free market could handle everything else.

Interesting that the "enforce laws only" societies have failed to outcompete the "solve the freerider problem by taxing people and building infrastructure/ensuring the common good" ones.

I mean, just weird, right?

-W

What societies are you speaking of? The early stages of US society could be considered a "enforce laws only" society. The railroad industry and infrastructure was built without government tax money.

The early railroad industry in the US is a great example of what happens when you allow free markets to determine things.

A whole bunch of railways were built. Then the people who had built them became very wealthy, developed a monopoly, fixed prices, and raised prices to the point that they were strangling US development. The problem became so bad that the American people forced the government to respond to the regular abuses of power. That's why anti-trust legislation the ICC and Sherman Antitrust Act first came about.

Interesting that the "enforce laws only" societies have failed to outcompete the "solve the freerider problem by taxing people and building infrastructure/ensuring the common good" ones.

I mean, just weird, right?

-W

lol. Yes.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd really not like to back to the Industrial Revolution and the quagmire of shit that was. No environmental protects, being unable to pay your debts (for whatever reason) was a criminal offense, orphanages were horrific, workers had no rights (and becoming dead due to working conditions was not terribly unusual), and slums were a reality. The church didn't help then, why would it make any real difference now?

Sometimes I feel like that's what the small government people really want - because the America of the 1800s certainly had fewer regulations and much more power in the hands of industry. It didn't work out so well for anybody not already a part of the industrial elite, but who knows. Maybe next time it'll be different? Seriously, go look a some photos of London in the 19th century or New York slums or conditions in church run orphanages. Or even church run prisons (some of which were even intended to be /more/ humane than other options).

Interesting that the "enforce laws only" societies have failed to outcompete the "solve the freerider problem by taxing people and building infrastructure/ensuring the common good" ones.

I mean, just weird, right?

-W

What societies are you speaking of? The early stages of US society could be considered a "enforce laws only" society. The railroad industry and infrastructure was built without government tax money.

The early years of the US is not a golden era to harken back to, in any manner for any reason. It was a period of time that happened and was improved upon by subsequent generations. Your nostalgia glasses should be replaced by a thorough investigation of the actual realities of those years - and as a poor worker, not as a member of the class of elites whose names fill our history books.

As for currently existing societies I can't name any - I honestly don't think any exist.

Early railroads were privately owned, but don't fool yourself into thinking they weren't government financed. In reference to the intercontinental railroad:Their efforts led to the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864, which provided several forms of assistance. Each railroad received its right-of-way along with a land grant of ten alternating sections on both sides of every mile of track (about 12,800 acres per mile); the government retained the sections in between. In addition, the companies received government bonds totaling $16,000 a mile for each twenty-mile section of track completed on the plains. For the plateau between the Rocky and Sierra Nevada Mountains the amount per mile went up to $32,000 per mile and for the mountain regions, $48,000. Each company could also issue its own first mortgage bonds for the same amount as the government bonds, relegating the latter to a second mortgage.

I'm not saying I want to go back to an 1800's society. What I am saying is our rate of growth and our ability to outcompete other contries was better due to the lack of goverment intervention.

The pacific railroad acts could very well have aided in the monopolies that were created. Once railroads started spanning the US, the government began deciding where railroads should be built to reduce redundancy and used financing to accomplish those goals. This led to other players in the market not being able to compete with government funded projects. With one rail servicing a few areas the rail company could charge whatever they wanted. That lead to ICC.

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W

Maybe I am interpreting this wrong but people give to charity all the time without some authority making them do it.

Many religions make donations part of being a good person/going into heaven so I would consider that come authority making them.

Non-religious people (or people who are religious but are not required to give charity) give to charity all the time without some authority making them do it. /Correction

Health and environmental issues are different all together. Many of the things we now know are bad for us weren't even discovered then. Modern med and environmental understand has exploded in the last 50 years.

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W

Maybe I am interpreting this wrong but people give to charity all the time without some authority making them do it.

I think you did interpret it wrong. It's not that Americans donít give to charity, because we do. It's that no charity is large enough or has enough money to tackle nationwide problems. Also, the freeloader problem is still a problem. Also, plenty of people are threatened with eternal damnation and torture their entire childhoods and still manage to give zero fucks, so I don't think that's really an effective way to get people to part with their money.

Also, it's kind of a silly argument. Sure, people donate to charities all the time. Charities, however, aren't going to run school districts, inspect buildings for code (safety) violations, pave roads, run libraries, clean and maintain parks, enforce laws, care for orphans, create and inforce regulation protecting our health, etc. Taxes force everyone to pay their fair share of resources they either use directly themselves or that others currently use and they might someday use themselves.

I understand waht you are saying. Charities have run schools, libraries, hospitals and taken care of orphans in the past. Actually, other than "enforce laws" the free market could handle everything else.

I've read that Americans are one of the most charitable peoples in the world (in terms of percentage of people self-reporting as having donated to charity, volunteered, or helped a stranger.)

That said, one issue with charities vs. government agencies is coverage. Sure, it's great if you have a NGO food pantry or church hospital in a community. But what if you don't? Government services may not be great but at least they are available to everyone in the state. Whereas although private charities may be served with passion and care, coverage will be patchy.

Anyway, there is room for both government and privately administered groups to work... there is certainly no lack of problems to solve, and Americans definitely have enough spare money to help all, or would if people weren't greedy (it was estimated that in 2006 alone, Americans owed $450 billion more in taxes than they actually paid, possibly due to black market activity and tax havens.)

Let government establish a decent baseline of nutrition, shelter, health, safety, and education for all, and then there is plenty of opportunity for private/free market initiatives to raise quality of life beyond that.

I'm not saying I want to go back to an 1800's society. What I am saying is our rate of growth and our ability to outcompete other contries was better due to the lack of goverment intervention.

The pacific railroad acts could very well have aided in the monopolies that were created. Once railroads started spanning the US, the government began deciding where railroads should be built to reduce redundancy and used financing to accomplish those goals. This led to other players in the market not being able to compete with government funded projects. With one rail servicing a few areas the rail company could charge whatever they wanted. That lead to ICC.

So, the example that you picked as a triumph of private industry was railroads. Now you're saying these same railroads weren't actually an example of private industry. It turns out that the government was necessary to get the railways working as quickly as they did.

What exactly is your preferred solution to the problem? There are three possible ways for things to go:- No government intervention (so no railways are built, or they're built too slowly for the needs of the US).- More government intervention (additional government hand-outs would probably allow for greater competition).- No change to the policy of limited government intervention where needed and then regulation when businessmen become too greedy and start hurting the country.

I'm not saying I want to go back to an 1800's society. What I am saying is our rate of growth and our ability to outcompete other contries was better due to the lack of goverment intervention.

The pacific railroad acts could very well have aided in the monopolies that were created. Once railroads started spanning the US, the government began deciding where railroads should be built to reduce redundancy and used financing to accomplish those goals. This led to other players in the market not being able to compete with government funded projects. With one rail servicing a few areas the rail company could charge whatever they wanted. That lead to ICC.

So, the example that you picked as a triumph of private industry was railroads. Now you're saying these same railroads weren't actually an example of private industry. It turns out that the government was necessary to get the railways working as quickly as they did.

What exactly is your preferred solution to the problem? There are three possible ways for things to go:- No government intervention (so no railways are built, or they're built too slowly for the needs of the US).- More government intervention (additional government hand-outs would probably allow for greater competition).- No change to the policy of limited government intervention where needed and then regulation when businessmen become too greedy and start hurting the country.

No, I'm saying the railroads the government chose to fund weren't an example of private industry. Those railroads weren't being built because they were most likely not profitable, hence why the goverment had to assist in funding the projects. If they were going to be profitable, someone would have built them.

Why do you assume that if there was no government intervention they would have been built too slowly for the needs of the US?

What is interesting is that in the mid 20th century the railroad industry was deregulated for its survival which led to a massive shift in the amount of rail being maintained, led to huge reductions in passenger cars and an increase in freight cars because of the automobile. In my opinion, based on the information I have gathered, the pricing model acts much quicker and is much more effiecient that the central planning model.

You're quibbling now, but it's nice to see that you recognize that there are some situations in which a group of self-interested individuals left to their own devices don't produce an optimal outcome.

Look, everyone understands (even super hardcore libertarians) that things like law enforcement, national defense, courts, and basic infrastructure are best handled by the government (at one level or another, doesn't have to be the feds). Everyone probably (even the most hardcore collectivist) also agrees that there are a bunch of things that the government sucks at (business/profit driven enterprise, picking winners and losers, etc) and we have lots of historical examples of failed communist/very collectivist (Venezuela!) economies.

Then there are problems like pollution where the market doesn't price in the cost to society very well, and things like healthcare where you can debate on and on whether a free market can function well.

But the basic idea that you need some central authority to deal with some things is really not controversial. It's the middle-ground stuff that is interesting (climate change would be a great example - are businesses capable of pricing in the potential consequences? One would thing rationally that the possibility of the entire economy crashing would be a deterrent to business as usual...), not the idea that you need a robust government to make basic things run well.

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W

It's interesting how our conversation evolved from what you posted above to your last statement. I actually like how you broke out services to be perfomed by government vs private industy.

I agree that it is the middle of the road things that are most interesting. Climate change, to use your example, is anyone capable of pricing in the potential consequences? Even if the US can, its futile if we can't get china, india, russia, etc. to agree to the same. If we do get them to agree what about third world contries that are trying to develope? And at what cost to the average american? Difficult stuff

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W

It's interesting how our conversation evolved from what you posted above to your last statement. I actually like how you broke out services to be perfomed by government vs private industy.

I agree that it is the middle of the road things that are most interesting. Climate change, to use your example, is anyone capable of pricing in the potential consequences? Even if the US can, its futile if we can't get china, india, russia, etc. to agree to the same. If we do get them to agree what about third world contries that are trying to develope? And at what cost to the average american? Difficult stuff

Not exactly: "The United States, with less than 5 % of the global population, uses about a quarter of the world's fossil fuel resourcesóburning up nearly 25 % of the coal, 26 % of the oil, and 27 % of the world's natural gas."In addition we are working internationally, see the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the agreement between China and the US. Oh, I forgot, Trump wants to cancel that.

I don't care about CO2 emissions, the cow left the barn a long time ago on that.

But...

It's time to spend a f*ckton of money on basic research on mitigation and adaptation. I'd probably increase NIH and NSF budgets by an order of magnitude, with a heavy focus on cell biology/making stuff with CRISPR, plant science, geoengineering, and of course solar power in various forms. Throw some more money at fusion too. Go heavy on the grad student and postdoc level funding, encourage lots of industry/academic collaboration, bring the ag departments into the 21st century and give them the respect they deserve.

Best of all, even if the tinfoil hat skeptics are all right and climate change is a nothingburger, we get a shit ton of great science and new tech and better/cheaper food and energy out of it. Win/win.

Etc, etc. Nobody is going to do that, though. We'll just have to dump stuff in the atmosphere to try to cool things down in a couple of decades and deal with it ad hoc.

I don't care about CO2 emissions, the cow left the barn a long time ago on that.

But...

It's time to spend a f*ckton of money on basic research on mitigation and adaptation. I'd probably increase NIH and NSF budgets by an order of magnitude, with a heavy focus on cell biology/making stuff with CRISPR, plant science, geoengineering, and of course solar power in various forms. Throw some more money at fusion too. Go heavy on the grad student and postdoc level funding, encourage lots of industry/academic collaboration, bring the ag departments into the 21st century and give them the respect they deserve.

Best of all, even if the tinfoil hat skeptics are all right and climate change is a nothingburger, we get a shit ton of great science and new tech and better/cheaper food and energy out of it. Win/win.

Etc, etc. Nobody is going to do that, though. We'll just have to dump stuff in the atmosphere to try to cool things down in a couple of decades and deal with it ad hoc.

-W

If we are going to do something big I would like to see it be incentivized the other way. Make fossel fuels so expensive via taxes on emission that whatever technology developes will solve the problem. I don't like to idea of hand picking technology and maybe with huge taxes on emissions fossil fuel companies with come up with technology to solve their own problem.

I don't care about CO2 emissions, the cow left the barn a long time ago on that.

But...

It's time to spend a f*ckton of money on basic research on mitigation and adaptation. I'd probably increase NIH and NSF budgets by an order of magnitude, with a heavy focus on cell biology/making stuff with CRISPR, plant science, geoengineering, and of course solar power in various forms. Throw some more money at fusion too. Go heavy on the grad student and postdoc level funding, encourage lots of industry/academic collaboration, bring the ag departments into the 21st century and give them the respect they deserve.

Best of all, even if the tinfoil hat skeptics are all right and climate change is a nothingburger, we get a shit ton of great science and new tech and better/cheaper food and energy out of it. Win/win.

Etc, etc. Nobody is going to do that, though. We'll just have to dump stuff in the atmosphere to try to cool things down in a couple of decades and deal with it ad hoc.

-W

If we are going to do something big I would like to see it be incentivized the other way. Make fossel fuels so expensive via taxes on emission that whatever technology developes will solve the problem. I don't like to idea of hand picking technology and maybe with huge taxes on emissions fossil fuel companies with come up with technology to solve their own problem.

That seems like a reasonable approach to fossil fuels on the surface.

The main issue I see with doing it, is that so much infrastructure has already been built around cheap fossil fuels that the transition period (of undetermined length . . . 10, 15, 20, 25 years?) will be very tough on people. The people that it will be hardest on are those who can barely make ends meet right now. Triple the price of gas, and the middle class can absorb it. The rich don't care but all of a sudden a large number of poor people can't afford to drive to work . . . and until alternative means of transportation are available you're preventing that large portion of the population from being productive. The free market would likely find a solution in the end, but there's going to be a waiting period and at least a generation of people badly hurt by this decision.

Those people will get angry . . . which means one of several things will happen:- they'll vote out the party who suggested the policy- they'll riot, cause civil unrest, increase crime (if you leave 'em to starve this is what tends to happen)- they'll give up on being productive members of society (drawback of large scale welfare system when no jobs can reasonably be found)

We need a change that eases people off of cheap gas while simultaneously building infrastructure and developing alternative transportation solutions. A purely capitalist solution isn't going to provide a great answer to this problem for the reasons just mentioned.